Update: I had a bad version of the draft package.
Here are images of a summary draft plan for 2008, which summaries a .5% plan and a .4% plan. For Seattle, the difference seems to be extending the streetcar from John to Aloha on Broadway, which seems like a tiny difference for .1%. On the Eastside, though, .1% is the difference between Bellevue and Microsoft, which I think is well worth it. I’d guess there’s other money going to something else. What’s interesting is that ST would move about 302,000-309,000 people per day with $700-800 million total operating costs from 2008 to 2020, while King County Metro moves less than that number each day with operating costs of about $500 million per year. 
0.5 would also get LINK from S. 200th to Highline CC, and apparently get a little work done on a bus lane for Aurora.
It looks like most of the Snohomish money goes into engineering for eventual light rail, PLUS putting a bus line on 99 all the way to Everett. That’s a good idea.
Damn, no Federal Way or Lynnwood. Those seem pretty important to me.
Obviously I’d like to see ALOT more light rail, but I’m sure we’ll see more excitement once the first line opens.
This is good for now. I like the focus on moving towards the future in Everett and Tacoma with environmental review, early engineering, and ROW acquisition.
It makes me nervous that Ballard-West Seattle is being completely ignored here… I don’t think we’ll get the votes we need there if there isn’t at least some study done to replace the monorail vacuum.
I’m 100% pro-rail. But…
No Microsoftie will spend 15 mins getting to Qwest from wherever downtown, then another 31 mins traveling from Qwest Field to Overlake, when they could have taken the bus across 520, especially if there is a BRT option, taking half the time.
That route is a red herring.
Brad,
Some will choose to take the bus, if it really only takes 23 minutes. That’s great
Others will choose to live on the South Side of downtown to take advantage of the rail line, or Mercer Island, or in Bellevue, or along Bel-Red.
And others will take the train, because it doesn’t get gummed up the SR 520 HOV lanes like the bus does, is more comfortable, and isn’t SRO.
Have they decided where the eastside line will connect to Central Link?
I think you are wrong about the Redmond line. It currently takes approximately all day via bus to get there for most places on the central link. This makes it doable from many more dense, urban places.
I think that route is more about Seattle-Bellevue-Remond, than it is about Seattle-Redmond. But I’d rather spend 35-40 minutes standing on a train than the 53 minutes I spent standing on the 545 in stop-and-go on the way home last friday
The options sound pretty good. However, I think extending the tacoma link a few stops more would really help support from that area for the vote.
From the timepoints in the plan, I assumed the transfer/junction of Central and Eastside links will be at the Royal Brougham Busway facility. (Notice they didn’t call the time point “Safeco Field” since that won’t be the name of that stadium much longer.)
So Cale and Martin… people are going to move their homes to be able to ride the train for 31+ minutes thru Mercer Island, downtown Bellevue and past the hospital to the OTC?
Methinks your theory is getting more and more ludicrous all the time.
Half of MS employees would save 10+ mins alone by simply walking to the 545 bus stop on 520 rather than slogging all the way across 520, and down to the OTC.
Speaking of buses getting ‘gummed up’, been to OTC lately? My bus had to wait 3 traffic signal cycles to leave the transit center due to traffic last week. Thanks CONNECTOR!
My overall point is not that the link shouldn’t be built to Overlake TC. It’s that the Bellevue-to-OTC portion of the route will be underutilized (due to direct competition from the BRT across 520).
As such, it seems that other areas could benefit from the capital, such as building out to Lynnwood (as Cale suggests) etc.
If the plan was Redmond TC to Seattle, I’d be singing a different tune.
This is where sub-area equity becomes problematic.
Have you been on the 545 at rush hour? It’s standing room only, and it comes every 5~10 minutes at peak time.
Only one in six MSFT employees lives in Seattle. The Bel-Red corridor is going to be redeveloped as part of Bellevue’s growth management plan. Running a train that goes to OTC in five minutes from bel-red is going to attract a lot of riders.
Are the timelines on the two plans the same? In the survey they did recently, the 0.4% plan took 12 years, while the 0.5% plan took 20 years. (On the other hand, it wasn’t clear if the 20 year plan would get to all the destinations of the 12 year plan in 12 years.)
East Link will intersect with Central Link at International District via the I-90 center roadway ramps that lead to the tunnel. East and south routes are interlined up to Northgate. I think a one seat ride from the UW or Capitol Hill to Overlake TC will be attractive even if the 520 BRT is a shorter trip.
Besides, you’ll never get to Redmond without getting to Overlake first.
Thanks for the bogus analysis. I would encourage you to read more closely. ST2 only adds 110,000 riders by 2020. The operating costs are for operations not funded by Sound Move.
2007 ridership on Metro BUS ridership (not including other modes it operates) carried 365,000 daily. That was up 55,000 from three years previously. Here is my reference: http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/news/2008/nr080123_ridership.htm
And your Metro costs? I assume you are getting that NTD data.http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2006/agency_profiles/0001.pdf
The operating revenues up top equal roughly $500 million in 2006. I assume this is the source of your number.
But look at operating costs for bus and trolley bus only. It is less than $400 million. $50 million goes for ACCESS for the disabled population (part of those dollars go for DART), an expensive service that Sound Transit has been able to weasel out of thus far. Even with Vanpool and Demand Response the numbers still don’t add up to $500 million as shown on top of the summary from the National Transit Database. So where are the missing dollars? Overhead? No. That is allocated to all operations and capital expenses already. Oh yea, it is spent in operating your beloved 545, the 550, 522 and a handful of other Sound Transit routes that are conveniently included in your 300,000 in 2020 number.
Please check your facts and use references where possible. They are usually very helpful.
I can’t rest until I share with you the denouement.
But first, to ensure that you are with me in understanding that the operating costs are limited to ST2. Current light rail and bus services offered by Sound Transit cost over $85 million to operate in 2006 (Source: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2006/agency_profiles/0040.pdf)
The 550 won’t go away before Link gets to Bellevue so you should assume that there would be 10 years of these costs. Remember, this is all Sound Move. And they don’t include the service adds to Sounder accomplished last year and have yet to come in Sound Move. So multiply that out for just 12 years and you get $860 million.
OK, so the numbers represent ST2 only. Well, when will these light rail lines open? 2018? 2019? 2020? Certainly not before those dates. New Sounder service and BRT on 520 will be some of the few Sound Move expenditures happening before those dates. So you see, your ridership (which I now note is 2030, not 2020) and your operating costs are back loaded; Likely 70% of the operating costs shown in the folio are expended in a 24-36 month period. For 110,000 people a day.
A more appropriate apples to apples analysis would be to add up all operating costs for each agency side by side for the next 12 years then add up all the riders during that same period. Try again.
I am fairly confident that people would spend 10 more minutes on a comfortable, punctual train than on a bumpy, potentially stuck-in-traffic bus.
Is there some other solution that I am totally missing here? I suppose a line across 520 would be faster for Seattle-Redmond, but we would get so many more riders out of Mercer Island, Bellevue and Bel-Red.
A Ballard-West Seattle line, a Tacoma line, an Everett line and a North-South Eastside line would all be used more than a line from UW-Redmond.
Plus operating costs will eventually be lower for a train route than a million different express routes. Not to mention it will attract many more riders and spur TOD around the stations, which the 545 is completely unable to do.
Cale- The station locations for the Eastside link will be in places that are already highly developed, so there will be no bump there.
somejerk- There will be no such thing as a “one-seat ride from UW” to the Eastside via train. There will be a transfer necessary downtown. No transit planner in their right mind would run a route that competes directly against another program (BRT).
daimajin- Yeah, the 545 is jammed at rush hour. But there are other more consistent yet longer alternatives now (I90 routes, routes around the north of the lake, etc) and people still cram onto the 520 routes, chasing that “good day” on the bridge, with hopes of the shortest commute.
I’m guessing that if you tried to convince an Eastside voter that we need trains so that we can move people from Microsoft to Bel-Red or even Bellevue, you’d would either get laughed at OR they would look at you as if you were insane. Ditto Mercer Island.
Just fricking build the damn rail line already!!
I respectfully disagree with the notion that since these stations are highly developed, there won’t be any development around them. They may be “highly developed” for the average American town, but they have a long way to go before their urban cores are anywhere near maxed out. There are plenty of parking lots in supposedly dense areas where mid rises could stand. Dense walkable neighborhoods are the future market force in housing, and that means building up in existing urban cores.
And I think it goes without saying people would ride light rail before taking a bus around the lake just for consistency.
I know Microsoft was pushing for Prop 1. Whether it was for the roads or the transit I don’t know. If they and the rest of the business culture over there don’t care about transit, maybe we need to re-examine the rush to Redmond.
I know the developers of Bel-Red sure want it ;-)
Am I the only person here who believes that rail should not be about creating development or jobs, or solidifying a political base, but about getting people out of their cars, and transporting them in the most efficient and direct way possible?
Brad: There will be no such thing as a “one-seat ride from UW” to the Eastside via train. There will be a transfer necessary downtown. No transit planner in their right mind would run a route that competes directly against another program (BRT).
You’re awfully sure of that for someone who’s wrong. From the WSDOT 520 Plans:
The conceptual service plan being
developed for East Link assumes that trains will operate at nine-minute
headways in each direction during the peak periods and ten-minute
headways in the off-peak periods. East Link will be interlined with
North Link, providing a direct connection from downtown Bellevue to
the UW and Northgate stations by 2021 and to Overlake by 2027.
Sound Transit isn’t stupid. Where you have the demand to interline the routes, why wouldn’t you?
The real question is whether the capacity is there for WS-Ballard too. I think the solution there is for East Link to diverge at Brooklyn and head west to Ballard. Behold Ballard Link
cale, if you want to understand ballard/west seattle, can you email me, perhaps? I suspect you may have missed the other dozen times we’ve explained why Sound Transit is making a good decision here, but I’d be happy to discuss it with you!
Brad, I’m a Microsoftie, and since 2001, I’ve ridden a bus to Montlake from the north and then take the 545. With rail:
– I would get on at Roosevelt station and stay on. I get the elimination of a transfer (and a transfer where I have to stand on a highway).
– I know the length of my commute. When leaving the house, no matter what information I have from wsdot, I have NO IDEA how long my commute will be. Rail will always be the same time.
– I can be pretty sure of getting my bike to work with me on time, rather than waiting at Montlake for a 545 that isn’t full. I don’t do that every day, but it’s a significant consideration.
– This allows people on the eastside with bus access to Bellevue to hop on a train the rest of the way. That’s a lot of the eastside.
East Link has ALWAYS connected with Central Link in EXACTLY the same place. There has never been a decision about this, it was decided before Sound Transit even existed. The center roadway on I-90 feeds directly into the bus tunnel. Take bus 550 sometime, you’ll see.
somejerk, East Link will not go to Ballard. The existing core line should never be split again. Demand from Northgate and points northward already has future capacity locked up – a new line will be necessary to serve Ballard, with new right of way downtown.
Demand along the northern spine of Link matches the demand to the east and the demand to the south, added together. It’s a nearly perfect balance, and in the Sound Transit Long Range Plan, which I suggest everyone have a look at and will link to later, you can see that headways will eventually match up such that very regular service from Everett to Seattle is split to Bellevue, Issaquah, and Tacoma.
sam, transportation and urban development go hand in hand. Any transportation infrastructure creates development. It is absolutely necessary – especially now that we’re watching the disastrous results of the interstate highway project play out – to understand and plan for the impact of any transportation plan.
Getting people out of their cars won’t ever sell a transportation package. Ever. Mentioning it scares people shitless.
ben,
I think you misread my argument, I suspect we are in violent agreement. I believe the east side line in its current iteration is a better idea than a Ballard-West Seattle one. What I was talking about was a line that went over 520 would be a waste of money compared to Ballard-West Seattle.
Sam,
I strongly disagree that it should be about getting people out of their cars. If we do that we are impeding on personal freedom and that pisses every American off.
What we are doing is offering people a good reason to use mass transit and to live in dense, urban areas.
Light rail is for those who choose not to buy into the automobile/oil industry, for those who lead healthy walking lifestyles, for those who want to see our urban cores grow up instead of sprawling out; for those who refuse to see their communities paved over and divided further by oppressive freeways, and for those who believe in an environment built for human beings, not automobiles.
If we get construction jobs out of building light rail during a recession when construction could potentially be at a standstill, than I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Ben,
You keep saying that, but isn’t the route I’ve drawn in the Long Range Plan? Yes, it is. Along with a Crown Hill-QA-Ballard line, which appears to intersect the mainline at Westlake. I agree they can’t both share the track, but operating the Ballard-UW line as a shuttle would be crazy.
I just don’t see a problem with this:
5 PM – Lynnwood
5:02 – Ballard
5:04 – Lynnwood
5:06 – Ballard
5:08 – Lynnwood
5:10 – Ballard
All trains serve 45th & Husky Stadium. Certainly until the line pushes north of Lynnwood this is workable.
somejerk, what’s wrong with that is that four minute headways aren’t enough in the long run for the Seattle to Everett spine.
Simple as that.
cale, it’s a matter of legality, not what’s a better idea, really.
In the long run, we’re all dead. I don’t agree with the whole “screw the suburban P&R commuter model” argument the Stranger/Sierra Club axis makes, but prioritizing reserving capacity Everett won’t need till 2040 over adding desperately needed crosstown urban service is asinine.
Sure, another N-S tunnel has to be dug eventually, but that’s no reason not to get Ballard, Fremont and Wallingford connected to the spine ASAP.
In the range plan, West Seattle isn’t even planned to be connect via light rail. Why are we talking about it? The monorail?
I *remember* reading somewhere that the average American moves every seven years. Of course, that may have something to do with how long the average marriage lasts, but, whatever.
Whether that’s right, or just half right, it’s close enough for all practical purposes. The price of gas ain’t going down, and there is a bunch of us who didn’t mean for our present home to be the last home we ever lived in. Homeowners today may not want to sell, but renters are looking at a market that gets better every day for them.
So a lot of this concern about how well the system serves the existing market is just misplaced- some of it an intentional form of confusion based on the idea that you should change the bus routes every ten years to conform with the new census findings. If you actually did that, of course, everyone would need to own a car, because you could never know when your bus would be discontinued, and if everyone owned cars, you wouldn’t need any buses.
Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed. Lots of people will be moving to be closer to transit. The two plans presented are both good ‘next steps’. The only real question is whether the electorate has drunk so much kool-aid that they’ll elect Dinosaur Rossi and get stuck in the congestion tarpit. At least he’s presenting a clear choice between yesterday and tomorrow.
In any case, gas prices are going to make a lot of people think more carefully, and more often, about where their next home ought to be.
somejerk, I will lay this out once more.
Sound Transit CANNOT spend money collected in SNOHOMISH county on KING COUNTY projects.
Does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense, but where did I suggest subarea equity be violated? I’m in favor of Everett and Tacoma serving as their own hubs and building towards eventual “golden spike” connections at Mountlake Terrace and Federal Way.
Otherwise, they get a free ride off of King County, which paid the freight for a lot of $$$ tunnelling to make the connection to Seattle & Bellevue possible. I think the success of Tacoma Link compared with the controversy the propsed ST2 Tacoma run stirred up shows the merits of this approach.
Ok, I think it’s time for me to jump on board here and fill in some answers that need to be said.
East Link will be split in several different sections. Example for Westlake Mall will be the following
Southbound/Eastbound
Westlake: 4:58p Stadium (Baseball train)
Westlake: 5:00p Redmond
Westlake: 5:02p Sea-Tac Airport
Westlake: 5:04p Bellevue
Westlake: 5:06p South 154th Street
Westlake: 5:08p Redmond
Westlake: 5:10p MLK & Henderson
Westlake: 5:12p Lander Street (To O&M)
Northbound
ID: 5:00p Westlake
ID: 5:02p Husky Stadium
ID: 5:04p Northgate
ID: 5:06p Westlake
ID: 5:08p Husky Stadium
ID: 5:10p Northgate
Sound Transit and Metro Transit will have the capacity of running trains every 2 minutes WITH buses. Buses will have the ability to run around IF there is no wheelchair inbound. Those trials were very successful last weekend (26th)
Another thing is – Yes, we would all love to see more light-rail, especially in Tacoma.
Do we kill the expansion of Sounder to say 24 trains and the extended platform to allow 10 car trains and expand Tacoma Link to Fife and Tacoma Community College.
By doing that there is still wiggle room for “all-day” Commuter Rail however there would only be 1-2 mid-day, 2 extra morning, and 2 extra evening runs. There wouldn’t be any trains that would service the Mariners week day games unless you don’t mind waiting around for extra time and there would not be service home besides ST Express..
Tacoma Link would connect Tacoma Community College with the University of Washington Tacoma Campus along with connecting to Tacoma General Hospital and the Emerald Queen Casino in Fife (Not the I-5 location) It would also join a lot of the eatery, brewery, restraunts and night clubs together with Link. ANY expansion of Tacoma Link will induce a fare which would follow Pierce Transit. The ONLY reason Tacoma Link is as popular as it is currently is because it is FREE, with FREE parking. Any changes will also remove the Skoda Trams for the Kinkisharyo vehicles.
I personally wouldn’t mind a cut in Sounder for Tacoma Link as it serves the valley, SR-167 corridor more than I-5/Tacoma. A few more trains plus 10 car trains would be a major improvement even if it would add a few extra minutes to the schedule.
Furthermore – There is nothing that Sound Transit can do for the Ballard – West Seattle corridor, please, get off this subject and more forward. Until the roadway is improved that would allow extra bus service, nothing and I mean nothing will happen. The Ballard bridge needs to be wider and by that, a 6 lane bridge. This would enable Metro or Sound Transit to do a BRT corridor on this route with it’s own lane from Ballard to Downtown Seattle. West Seattle is a white-horse that is difficult to solve. Light-Rail, Streetcar, BRT, Skytram, etc, it doesn’t matter, it would be difficult to resolve the West Seattle corridor, with or without the Viaduct.
And finally, the Eastside NEEDS Link AND commuter rail. We can not rely on I-90 and 520 BRT and Light-Rail to serve the masses as A LOT of people live in the 167 valley that take Sounder North and vanpool from Tukwila Station to Microsoft and other businesses. Don’t believe that? Sit at Tukwila Station from the First train to the last.. the lot is bare.
There is a lot that Sound Transit CAN do but we also need another way of paying for it besides MVET, Sales Tax, Gas Tax, Coffee Tax, Beer Tax, etc. State Income Tax, Cloudy Day Fund, etc. who cares but it does need to be different.
(/rant)